cannabisnews.com: Up In Smoke 





Up In Smoke 
Posted by CN Staff on March 16, 2009 at 08:12:50 PT
By John Walters 
Source: Weekly Standard
Washington, D.C. -- In recent months, more Americans have learned what those living on the border have known for several years: the Mexican government is in a deadly fight with extremely violent gangs. Thousands and thousands of Mexicans were killed last year and the carnage continues at a shocking rate. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has been deploying security forces, mobilizing billions of dollars in new spending, and launching historic reform and anti-corruption initiatives to stop the terrorist-mafias. He has also sought unprecedented cooperation from us to defeat this common threat.
The director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, recently suggested that the governability of parts of Mexico is in question. It is now beyond question that the threat is a top national security matter for the United States. Calderon's success or failure will profoundly determine the future security of both our countries. What is the Obama administration doing? The President could have gone to the border to meet President Calderon and visibly demonstrate that we will stand with him and that the gangs will not prevail. The senior cabinet officers of both countries--State, Defense, Justice, and others--could have met jointly as was done last December in Washington, renewing a common plan of attack under the new administration to be driven forward at the highest levels. Is the president confused about whether the danger warrants such action? So far, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is clearly working hard on this issue, but the absence of the president and the rest of the cabinet makes her task more difficult.The administration should be fighting for full funding of the Merida Program of assistance from the United States. Our vital equipment and training will protect innocent lives in both our countries. But the White House has been unengaged as Congress is on a path to cut $100 million in support beyond the $100 million reduction of the last Congress. At a time when Mexico knows as well as we do that Congress is recklessly stimulating and earmarking billions, slashing funding for our national security is grossly irresponsible. Congress further proposes to shift to Central America some of the resources needed in Mexico. When is the White House going to point out that resources for Central America will never be adequate if the fight in Mexico fails? Mexico is the center of gravity. Equally troubling, the Obama administration has folded before pressure from Senator Patrick Leahy who is blocking appropriated funds for helicopters needed in Mexico. Apprehending the criminal leadership and protecting threatened law enforcement personnel across the extensive territory south of our border requires rapid airlift. Delay costs more Mexican lives.On the key issue of illegal drugs--the widely recognized source of criminal power in Mexico--the Obama administration is lurching dangerously in reverse. In his first statement on drug policy, Attorney General Eric Holder suggested he may no longer enforce federal law against trafficking marijuana if the traffickers call their marijuana medical. Both U.S. and Mexican officials at all levels know that medical marijuana is an utter fraud used to undermine drug enforcement in the United States. Mexican officials also know (as does the Justice Department) that much of the marijuana sold in the "dispensaries" of California funds the mafias of Mexico. Marijuana sales are the single largest source of drug profits for these criminals--on top of funds from kidnapping, protection rackets, alien smuggling, and car theft. Not enforcing our marijuana laws makes these terrorists stronger. Pretending to take legalization seriously makes them stronger still. What do we think the brave officers risking their lives in Mexico feel when our attorney general sounds like he is going to do less to help? Is it too much to expect him to make clear that enforcing our marijuana laws reduces addiction here and saves lives in Mexico?And what must Mexican officials think about Vice President Biden's recent announcement that the next director of drug control policy would be kicked out of the Obama cabinet? It was Joe Biden who complained over and over again when the first director, Bill Bennett, was not made a member of the elder President Bush's cabinet. Biden told Bennett his work would necessarily be viewed as lesser than that of other senior officials. His point was you can talk, but you cannot be as strong within the administration without being at that table. I served with Bill Bennett and I was a member of the cabinet in the last administration--Joe Biden was right. Continuing our sharp reductions in use and supply require strong management, effectively shaping drug control programs in almost every executive department. Everyone in Washington knows rank is a part of strength. The failure of President Obama to announce the new director himself, coupled with the demotion from cabinet membership, indicates two things. There must have been an internal debate over something the vice president cares very much about and he lost. More importantly, it shows that President Obama is not committed and that is dangerous for Mexico and the United States.I hope that this will change. The recently released Forbes list of wealthiest people in the world includes one of Mexico's most dangerous criminal leaders. President Obama should make it his goal to help President Calderon apprehend this man and those like him as soon as possible. John P. Walters is executive vice president of Hudson Institute and former director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George W. Bush. Note: The Obama administration is scaling back support for Mexico's drug war. Source: Weekly Standard, The (US)Author: John Walters Published: March 16, 2009Copyright: 2009 The Weekly StandardContact: editor weeklystandard.comWebsite: http://www.weeklystandard.com/CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #28 posted by Hope on March 18, 2009 at 08:38:59 PT
RChandar
Your basic theory is still very sound, looks like. Thank you.We all have to keep kicking back against the wrongs done to so many, many people in the name of the the prohibitionists' egregious, beloved pet, "War on Drugs". Too late to change the words now, it's been their very loudly trumpeted "War" too long.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by Hope on March 18, 2009 at 08:23:10 PT
Vincent
Don't worry about it. We are all upset or we wouldn't be here.FoM is the creator and keeper of C-News. She chooses all the articles she posts. All by herself. Every day. I'm just a friend, here, like everyone else. As though she's my sister, which she most certainly is, spiritually, I talk for her sometimes. :0)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Hope on March 18, 2009 at 08:16:36 PT
Sent this to the editor.
Mr. Walters is still promoting the War on Drugs even though he isn't the 
Drug Czar anymore.The violent War on Drugs as been one of the most misguided errands this 
government has ever taken on.Just recently, in Michigan, a SWAT style Dynamic Entry was done to serve a 
warrant on a twenty year old college student. He was unarmed and police 
burst in to his home and shot him point blank in the chest. Hole in his 
chest. Collapsed lung. Damaged liver. Somehow, he's survived.Recently, on television, there was a special, Al Roker's Marijuana, Inc., in 
which an officer in California said that anyone, in that state, less than 
twenty one years of age was a "Minor". Under twenty one, and a minor, means 
he's still considered by some in government, unless they want to send him to 
war, a child. According to that mindset, and law, the police in Michigan, 
not the only place this has happened, burst in and shot a minor, a child, a 
sleeping child, point blank in the chest. It's amazing he's still alive.I wonder if this "Child" they shot, this time, was that fabled, "One child". 
You know, that "One child! If we can save one child from drugs, it will all 
have been worth it!"Sure has taken a lot of death and horror to do it the way they're doing it.It's taken a higher toll of children than I ever heard of killed by police 
during the prohibition of alcohol or anything else... except something like 
the Holocaust or other vicious killing episodes that involved children as 
well as adults of all ages.The incident in Michigan is not the first time agents and enforcers for the 
War on Drugs have shot a child, by any means. I'm all too aware of that. I 
can't forget Alberto Sepulveda. Eleven years old. California. Drug Raid. 
It's horrible beyond a nightmare. Fourteen year old Ashley Villareal in 
Texas. They claim that they thought she was her Daddy, who was suspected of 
dealing drugs. Esequial Hernandaz in Texas while he was watching over his 
small herd of goats. Charity and her brother were shot at over the Amazon 
river for the sake of the War on Drugs. Her bother survived the horror 
though. Charity and her mother didn't. They were killed by the same bullet. 
Right through little Charity and through her mother, killing them both. 
Hopefully, this young man in Michigan will survive this being hurt, nearly 
to death.Government agents killed these children in the name of the War on Drugs. 
Killed them in their rooms. Killed them tending goats. Killed them in cars. 
Killed them eleven years old. Seven years old. Fourteen years old. Sixteen. 
Eighteen. Eighteen months. Killed them. Killed them dead. Dead at the 
funeral home in a coffin.And just think, they did it all for that mythical "One child".They have sacrificed so many people, including children and babies to their 
"War on Drugs".Yet some how, the prohibitionists, like John Walters, great and small, still 
manage to feel self righteous about it all. They aren't going to stop the 
killing on their "Watches". "No siree." As in Walter's case, not even after 
his "Watch" on the War on Drugs is over.One of those babies, that I know of, recently damaged by the violent "War on 
Drugs", only got part of his hand shot off when they killed his unarmed 
mother while she was holding him. Drug raid. For that "One child".The War on Drugs as we have known it has been a truly despicable endeavor. 
Despicable.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Vincent on March 18, 2009 at 08:01:29 PT:
Hope
Forgive me for resorting to my "Urban Guerilla" tactics. But when I read garbage like the "opinions" of john p. walters, it really upsets me. I must realize that it is your duty to report on all articles pertaining to the war on Marijuana. My apologies to everyone on this board; I did not mean to disrespect anyone. 
 By the way, you will notice that I spelled walters' name using lower-case letters. That's because I use small letters for a small man.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by FoM on March 18, 2009 at 07:17:08 PT
Hope
Yesterday we had a long time friend who lives out of state stop by to see us and I told him about you and our friendship. He smiled. He went to a protest in Ohio called something about a tea party. We had a really good talk about politics. He said it is really refreshing to talk about politics with others who have common sense instead of I'm a Republican or a Democrat. We talked about real issues and I totally enjoyed our talk.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Hope on March 18, 2009 at 07:08:48 PT
Posting my comment to Weekly Standard?
That comment I made, 15, was in response to the shooting in Michigan. I should make that in to a letter to the Weekly Standard in response to Walter's piece? Since you guys think it's to the point, I'll try.I didn't have a chance yesterday. Should get a little more computer time, today.Anything I ever say, if it's civilized, if anyone can use a thought anywhere, I'd be very happy about that.I've used other people's thoughts in letters before, saying, "A friend of mine said the other day..." and "I agree". Etc. Etc.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by christ on March 18, 2009 at 05:48:33 PT
Hope, Comment# 18
I hope the WeeklyStandard publishes your Response. I think that being open to differing points of view would improve their readership.You had also commented a reply to Vincent #17. My interpretation of his disgust is that it was directed toward the WeeklyStandard; not towards this excellent site.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Paint with light on March 17, 2009 at 23:18:04 PT
comment # 15
I read Hope's comment the other day and thought how good it was.Since then I have kept thinking about it and I had to come back and say so.The sentiment is expressed so well, it is almost like a song or a short play.Equal with alcohol.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by rchandar on March 17, 2009 at 19:37:51 PT:
Just Restating Basic Theory
Hey All--I just wanted to touch base with you again, make sure that we all understand what "change" could bring this world, and our country.--We run a lot of risks when we make policy, as we did 25 years ago, immutable moral law. Unquestioned. As in, we could never even think or talk about it. Lives are destroyed. Their humanity, their story, their community, is destroyed in the same fashion.We stand at a unique historical moment, when we could change our thinking and accept reality, accept that we may have wronged many people in the pursuit of immutable moral truth. A lot of people are not willing to adopt this thinking, mainly because it disturbs their unchallenged monopoly on moral thinking. I want you to understand, if you do not already, the massiveness of the number of lives destroyed or ruined by the War on Drugs. This is not a noble war, or a just war, or something that is going to improve humanity over time. It is not a movie, where all MJ users are crooks and thieves and pornographers. This is about families and individuals who have made choices with their lives, just as anyone else would.What we are asking for is that "choice" will be no longer punitive, that lives will not be destroyed or ended simply because their "choices" did not fit the fickle and narrow limitations of "acceptable" behavior in this day and age.We pride ourselves for being a democracy, where all citizens have a voice, and can be heard. But I will again state the obvious:From the movie, "Gandhi": there have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end, they always fall. Always. The Berlin Wall was supposed to be there forever--it fell.
Apartheid seemed pretty invincible when I was young--and it ended.Among us, regardless of the uncertainty about our President's moves, should NEVER think that the War on Drugs is immutable social and moral law. It would be callous of us to ever capsize to the viewpoints of small-minded and complacent citizens who have gotten used to making the rules for the rest of us. Punishment is definitely not an antidote to any of the problems created by drug use, either. In our culture, we have become a people who have had a hard time of forgiving, letting it go, letting the other guy live his life without our hand to guide. It is that time; this is what we must do, or we as a people will forever abandon that sense that we even care that right shall be done.Thank You.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by FoM on March 17, 2009 at 12:49:05 PT
UK: Obama Drops 'War on Drugs' Rhetoric 
Obama Drops 'War on Drugs' Rhetoric for Needle ExchangesMarcxh 16, 2009URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/16/drug-policy-obama-needle-exchange
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Hope on March 17, 2009 at 09:35:49 PT
Christ and Vincent Comments 16 and 17
Christ, I'll see about posting it to them as soon as I can today. Profanity? There is a message in red at the comment window, "[Please refrain from using profanity in your message]". No doubt, it's a simple straight forward, polite request. We can say, "Dang!" and "&%#~!#!" and abbreviations and such. We know what you mean... because we usually feel something like it.Lol! FoM runs a tight ship and we're not supposed to use profanity. It's not machine caught... it's eyeball caught. But She understands about the need to blurt out anger on occasion. If you really need to let er fly... you won't get banned or blocked. It better be a good reason though. If you got carried away or made a habit out of it, it would definitely mess up the light of truth we so treasure in here, and besides, we are intelligent enough, most of the time, to use language that indicates we can think, and don't need to resort to just hissy fits. I've found it's really good for vocabulary development to try and find the right words without resorting to vulgarity, though. Prohibitionists have definitely caused most of us to develop our vocabulary better to try and cover the disgust and anger we feel.Years ago, this site made the news, courtesy of one of the more famous female prohibitionists. She came here and spoke occasionally and just was really perturbed that people like we existed and we actually spoke about such things as we do on a public forum. She "Outted" us in a newspaper. We also know we are monitored closely by the DEA and God only knows who else. We're in public and we're as decent and good a people as there are on the face of this earth... and we don't care who knows it. In fact we want them to know it. Also, women, often, are more offended by a lot of profanity, than not, and we want women to feel comfortable here, too. Cuss out loud and bang the desk and spill coffee... but try to keep the comments "classy", if you will, and printable in any newspaper. Don't let them get to you to that point. A good cussing, hissy fit can make you feel better... but having it written down forever just means they got to you, generally. We don't need to just cuss 'em out... we need to get them out of power and revealed for what they are... poisonous and dangerous.Vincent. FoM searches for articles pertaining to cannabis prohibition in the United States. If a major prohibitionist gets something printed in a right wing rag, we need to know about it. It's part of our education. We have to know what's going on at the highest... or lowest, if you will, levels. This is a place to vent and a place to know that there are others that feel the way you do about it all. There's comfort and encouragement in that. But it's also very much about knowing what we're talking about and keeping up with what's going on. It's also a springboard to write and call these papers and people. It would be a huge mistake to ignore what prohibitionists are up to.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Vincent on March 17, 2009 at 07:56:29 PT:
The article in the Weekly Standard
When I saw the article from the Weekly Standard on your bulletin board, I was thinking, "what the hell...", as the Weekly Standard is A Right-Wing rag. Must be a mistake, I thought. But then, I thought that they had turned the other cheek--but no, they were as vicious as usual. Then I saw the the author, John P. "knucklehead" Walters. I should have known. My question to you is this: Why do you print such nonsense from this Conservative animal?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by christ on March 17, 2009 at 04:31:05 PT
Comment #5 - Hope
Hope's comment is so true. I think it would be so nice if Hope posted most of Comment #5 as a Response to the Article on the WeeklyStandard website, and even better if the site had the guts to post the response. ps. Is it considered profanity to use words other than "guts" on this site?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/285lufax.asp
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Hope on March 16, 2009 at 19:12:31 PT
According to that cop and age standards
he spoke of on Al Roker's special, the police busted in and shot a minor, a child, a sleeping child, point blank in the chest. It's amazing he's still alive.I wonder if this child they shot this time, was that fabled, "One child". You know, that "One child! If we can save one child, it will have been worth it." Sure has taken a lot of death and horror to do it the way they're doing it.It's taken a higher toll of children than I even heard of killed by police during the prohibition of alcohol or anything else... except something like the Holocaust or other vicious killing episodes that involved children as well as adults of all ages.It's not the first time they've shot a child, by any means. I'm all too aware of that. I can't forget Alberto Sepulveda. It's horrible beyond a nightmare. Fourteen year old Ashley Villareal. Charity and her brother were shot at for the sake of the War on Drugs. He survived it though. Hopefully, this young man will survive this being hurt, nearly to death.Killed them. Killed them in their rooms. Killed them tending goats. Killed them in cars. Killed them eleven years old. Seven years old. Fourteen years old. Sixteen. Eighteen. Eighteen months. Killed them. Killed them dead. Dead at the funeral home in a coffin. And just think, they did it all for that mythical "One child". They have sacrificed so many people, including children and babies to their "War on Drugs". Yet some how, the prohibitionists, great and small, still manage to feel self righteous about it all. They aren't going to stop the killing on their "Watches". "No siree."One of those babies that I know of only got part of his hand shot off when they killed his unarmed mother while she was holding him. Drug raid. For that "One child".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on March 16, 2009 at 18:49:51 PT
Video Link In Article
GVSU President Seeks Answers, Students Protest Ottawa County Sheriff's Department's Shooting of Unarmed Student Derek CoppMarch 16, 2009URL: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/03/gvsu_president_seeks_answers_s.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by itsonlyaplant on March 16, 2009 at 18:44:13 PT
Ya know...
Some of these prohibs have actually gone to college and have even experimented with cannabis themselves. How in the world can they look at cannabis and know that when it was made illegal practically no one in our country had used it or even knew what it was, yet here it is 76 years later and we have an overwhelming percentage of our citizenry that have tried the demon seed and have had none of its so-called ills manifested. How is it that they can know personally people who have died as a result of alcohol, prescription drugs, and tobacco products and say cannabis is the cause of all mankinds woes? How can they say straight faced that cannabis is a killer when they know the REAL problem is prohibition. Rep. Ron Paul v. Steven Baldwin (of all people, Steven Baldwin? REALLY? Is that all htey got?) on Larry King Live said it best with regards to the "whys" and "what-fors" of cannabis prohibition and the "war on drugs" in general. It really makes me ill that this society is so tolerant of alcohol as a relaxant but so damned determined to keep cannabis possession a federal offense. Oh Well. Rant over.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on March 16, 2009 at 18:36:25 PT
News Article From Raw Story
MI Cops Shot Unarmed, 20-Year-Old Marijuana Activist ***By Stephen C. WebsterPublished: Monday March 16, 2009  A 20-year-old university student in Michigan is hospitalized and in serious condition after police shot the man Wednesday while serving a drug warrant. He was unarmed, investigators said.Coming through an apartment's back door, an Ottawa County deputy allegedly shined a flashlight into the student's face, causing him to raise his right hand in front of his eyes.The officer, whose name was not released, fired a single bullet into Derek Copp's chest. The 20-year-old Grand Valley State University student, who survived the shooting, said he had no idea the man was an officer."He never even had a chance to even see who was coming at him, with a bright flashlight in his face," said Sheryl Copp, Derek's mother, in a 24 Hour News 8 report. "He had no clue. He heard someone knock on his door, and he had no clue."URL: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/MI_cops_shoot_unarmed_20yearold_marijuana_0316.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by runruff on March 16, 2009 at 18:19:57 PT
I'd love to send him a Slap-A-gram!
Johnny[Mama's Boy] Pee wears white boxers. No surprise there!Cheney wears stripped boxers!The Son-of-Babs wears tighty whiteys!Karl Rove wears a sequined lavender thong!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by HempWorld on March 16, 2009 at 14:14:11 PT
Up yours ...
Johnny Pee, what are you going to do now? All your 'work' has been in vain, except that it has made marijuana even more popular!
On a mission from God!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on March 16, 2009 at 13:41:55 PT
News From The Hill Blog
In Ten Years, Medical Marijuana Has Gone From Fringe to Mainstream — So Why Is It Still Against The Law? By Paul Armentano March 16th, 2009 Tomorrow marks the 10-year anniversary of the publication of the Institute of Medicine’s landmark study on medical cannabis: “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.”When the White House commissioned this report in response to the passage of California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996, many in the mainstream media, and many more lawmakers, were skeptical about marijuana’s potential therapeutic value. The publication of the Institute of Medicine’s findings — which concluded that cannabis possessed medicinal properties to control pain and nausea, and to stimulate appetite — provided the issue with long-overdue credibility, and began in earnest a political discourse that
continues today.URL: http://drugsense.org/url/cSiz5Cgd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by konagold on March 16, 2009 at 11:16:11 PT
for whom the bell tolls
"ding dong the witch is dead,which old witch?the wicked witchding dong the wicked witch is dead"
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by MarijuanaSavesLives on March 16, 2009 at 10:55:42 PT
So sad to see you gone Mr.Walters.....
Oh he is sooooooooooo mad....And yes we must be moving in the right direction... I was thinking the same thing...who wrote this...I must send them a letter or a phone call...that is usually what I do when I read such non-sense... But then it was the JOHN of all JOHNS himself....Nothing to say to this guy...Kinda nice to see him writhing in his own juices.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Hope on March 16, 2009 at 10:34:17 PT
Prohibitionists created the cartels.
There would be no drug cartels if the prohibitionists didn't provide their venue for them.John Walters and other prohibitions set the fire that's burning. They add more fuel to it everyday and then, they have the audacity to complain about how hot it is. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Hope on March 16, 2009 at 10:05:14 PT
John Walters
He seems like a wicked man, bent on mayhem and destruction of as many and as much as he possibly can. He seems to "think" with his trigger finger. I don't admire him and the grief he's caused so many.Of course, as is the case with most violence mongers, he doesn't want in on it himself. He has his minions to send in to the gut spilling, head tumbling, and lives lost. Minions that know the risk and are well paid... so it's acceptable to risk them. He wants to have a hand in it from a safe distance from harm, splattered brains and blood. When more die, he'll say he's sad about some of the people who die from his course of action... but he'll says it's sadly necessary... collateral damage of his, and other prohibitionists' great goal and all.Illegal drug cartels will not benefit from legality. If they are murderers they are still murderers and that is a true crime ... always, and their murder investigations should be pursued and solved. If some of them are not murderers and they want to be a part of the legal production of marijuana, then perhaps they can revert to a legitimate form of commerce. But it won't be the same as the illegal business. Even if they stay in the cannabis business... it won't be the cannabis business with the same rules of unnaturally dangerous commerce, the rules of the black market, that are in place now. There will be legal farmers and growers. People properly compensated for their legal and honorable work. Legitimate trucking and shipping. Salesmen working for reasonable profit. There will be lawyers to solve financial or labor disagreements and legitimate workers... not hit squads and desperate, vicious smuggling. And any profits they earn through legitimate business won't be abnormally large.No torturers. No informants. No kidnappers. No hit men. No dissolving bodies in oil drums. No cops killed. No civilians killed.Clean business.Get a popular product, and cannabis, obviously, is a very popular product, whether they want it to be or not, out of the black market and all of the violence and coercion will be totally unnecessary.Another benefit of legalization... the cartels will no longer have need of huge, deadly arsenals and employees.Prohibition feeds cartels, gun runners, and cold blooded killers.Walters is one of the cold blooded killers, even if there is no powder residue or brain splatter on his hands. He ordered the trigger pulled.Of course, he's not covered in scary tattoos and wearing a wife beater shirt with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder. He's wearing the proverbial "Sheep's clothing".... but he's a killer, none the less. He's the proverbial "White washed sepulcher. Beautiful on the outside, but filled with rot and corruption and dead men's bones." Walters does not want peace. He thrives on this war just like the mythical vampire thrives on the blood of others. He wants murder and mayhem. He wants it and he's going to campaign for it every chance he gets. I think he's either very confused... or he, wickedly, wants more death and destruction to suit his goals.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on March 16, 2009 at 09:36:19 PT
Walters
If he's angry we must be moving in the right direction!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by runruff on March 16, 2009 at 09:17:38 PT
While over there, say hi to Alice, Mr. Pee!
How could anyone one, even a Bush sap, get reality so wrong!Who rattled his cage anyway? What a maroon! Let's see now Mr. Pee? About 80% Of the sane and otherwise awakening public disagree with you. That is to be nice to say that. Actually a very large percentage of self thinkers think that you are a pitchfork waving fanatic who campaigns without without benefit of fact or reason.Has he not heard that to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity? He would not be the first insane person to hold high office. He was an appointee of the Son-of-Babs.-'nuff said!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by dongenero on March 16, 2009 at 08:56:31 PT
As I am reading.......
I am thinking, "who is the idiot making these statements?"....Holder suggested he may no longer enforce federal law against trafficking marijuana if the traffickers call their marijuana medical." What? Somebody is putting words in Holder's mouth."Both U.S. and Mexican officials at all levels know that medical marijuana is an utter fraud used to undermine drug enforcement in the United States. Mexican officials also know (as does the Justice Department) that much of the marijuana sold in the "dispensaries" of California funds the mafias of Mexico." Whaaa? Grand sweeping lies here. EVERYONE KNOWS? Right. Unsubstantiated BS here."...Biden's recent announcement that the next director of drug control policy would be kicked out of the Obama cabinet?" Kicked out you say? That does sound very much more dramatic than saying it is simply no longer a cabinet position. They were KICKED out! Right, kicked, as in to the curb, got it. BS.Well, the idiot I was reading turned out to be none other than the Grand Poobah of Prohibitionist idiots, John Walters.
Suddenly, the ridiculous article makes perfect sense.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on March 16, 2009 at 08:22:39 PT
John Walters
Why does his failed policy need to be continued?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment